Nontechnical Skills

A Development Hierarchy for Military Teams

Sandra Veigas Campaniço Cavaleiro
CINAV – Centro de Investigação Naval, Portuguese Navy
Catarina Gomes and Miguel Pereira Lopes
University of Lisbon

Abstract
Military operational contexts are highly dynamic, implying that mil-
itary personnel should develop technical and nontechnical skills for
performing tasks and missions. Nontechnical skills (NTS), as they
promote reassuring performance, are preponderant for military
teams. Terefore, it is essential to examine the relevance of NTS in
this context and identify the main NTS to be developed. We per-
formed an integrative literature review on nontechnical skills to
identify the most important in military context. We determined
that situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team-
work, and team leadership are the most important values for mili-
tary teams. We propose a hierarchical skills development scheme for
nontechnical skills fundamental for the military context.

Tey are not new or mysterious skills but are essentially what the best practitioners do
in order to achieve consistently high performance and what the rest of us do “on a good
day.” (Flin et al., 2013, p. 3)

M
embership in the Armed Forces implies that individual performance is tak-
en to an extreme level, with a continual improvement of skills, to achieve
the necessary perfection for actual missions while training for operating
diferent weapons systems and learning new tactics and new emergency procedures
(Murphy & Duke, 2014). Tis continual improvement allows developing adaptable re-
sponses to the high dynamism of military operational contexts (Swezey et al., 1998).
Safe military operations are fundamental and require high levels of skills (Bertram
et al., 2015). It is important to minimize errors, which are the root cause for incidents
and accidents, and are often the diference between life and death (Espevik et al., 2011;

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 71

Nickens et al., 2009). Safe military operations rely on an extensive set of knowledge
(implicit and explicit) and individual skills, both determinants for the mission’s success.
Given this, this article intends to address the relevance of nontechnical skills
(NTS) development for military team training, as NTS may contribute to high lev-
els of performance (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2011), and to the reduction of human
error (Flin et al., 2013). Our discussion examines the relationship between training
and skills development, proposing a hierarchical skills development scheme for NTS
while also considering the relevance that the implementation of an NTS training
program can have for military teams (Cavaleiro et al., 2020).

Research Questions/Objectives
Upon examining literature sources on military team training and NTS to identify
an NTS development hierarchy, the main questions addressed for our review: (1)
Which NTS are used in high-dynamic environments such as the military context?
(2) Are NTS pivotal for military team performance? (3) How can NTS be developed
in military team training? Skills development is a mature topic in many research
areas. For aeronautics, NTS are well defned through the Crew Research Manage-
ment framework (Salas et al., 2006), but there is a lack of research in other military
felds, though importance of NTS for navy ofcers and other warship crew members
has been recognized (Conceição et al., 2019; Sellberg, 2017). It is vital to perform
an integrative literature review, considering its value for contributing new insights
about NTS in the military context. Tis article presents a literature review to extend
the NTS theoretical framework. First, we describe the methodology used for the
integrative literature review on NTS development. Second, we present our fndings,
considering the main NTS used in high-dynamic environments such as the military
context, the role of NTS in military team performance, and proposal of a NTS de-
velopment scheme in military team training. Tird, we refect about the relevance of
NTS for individual and team performance in the military context.

Teoretical Framework

Skills/Competence
Kerry (2013) reviews the research of many authors to defne skills based on four
main contributors. He starts with the critical incident technique developed by Fla-
nagan (1954) in the U.S. Air Force, the competence model of McClelland (1973),
and ends with the model by Spencer and Spencer (1993), while integrating the ear-

72 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

lier models developed with the military. More recently, Boyatzis (2008) notes that
emotional, social, and cognitive skills are pivotal for professional performance, in
addition to management skills (Chouhan & Srivastava, 2014).

Military Context
Te military context functions through a well-defned and well-established hi-
erarchy (Hontvedt & Arnseth, 2013). Te hierarchy relies on command functions
performed by military leaders based on their leadership and management skills (Ar-
buthnot & Flin, 2017), decision-making, and risk assessment (Arbuthnot, 2017). Te
military context is characterized by high time constraints, high risk-to-life situations,
and high levels of stress (Sarna, 2017). NTS development has become more relevant
to overcome constraints associated with training and human resources management
in the military (Kerry, 2013).

Sampling Frame and Data Evaluation for Literature Review

An integrative literature review on NTS was performed. Te authors synthesized
relevant information from sources about NTS development. Tis information can be
used for the construction of a theoretical model or framework, such as our proposed
conceptual model on NTS development for military teams (Snyder, 2019).
First, we have selected literature sources using the combination of the following
keywords: nontechnical skills, armed forces, team training, military team training,
and skills development in Google Academic. We have used Google Academic for
systematic searches performed from June to July 2019 and April 2020. Te results
were not limited by dates of article publication. We have considered the following
inclusion criteria: studies conducted with teams operating in dynamic environments
focusing on NTS development and related to maritime safety and human factors;
studies published in English only in peer-reviewed journals. We have excluded stud-
ies concerning NTS with no impact on team training or skills development. With
this step, we included from mature to new topics on NTS and compared the ev-
idence on NTS development from diferent research felds over time. Te search
resulted in the identifcation of 527 studies. Te authors read each piece of literature
to identify the main ideas and themes emerging from each article, resulting in the
selection of 234 studies. Ten, to obtain more updated information, we have restrict-
ed the review period to the last fve years, using the main themes emerging from the
frst step of the integrative literature review. We have also included terms relating to
NTS adapted from the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certifca-
tion and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (2012): situational awareness, decision-making,

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 73

communication, teamwork, and leadership. Tat strategy reduced the articles to 25
studies used in the review. Te primary evidence emerging from the literature sourc-
es was summarized, synthesized, analyzed, interpreted, and aligned to the three re-
search questions. Our interpretations analyze the signifcance of NTS for military
teams and relate the analysis to the literature sources. We also checked for the inclu-
sion of additional evidence from the selected studies from the referenced literature.
Te table presents the overview of reviewed studies.

Findings

Teme 1: What Are the Main NTS Used in High-Dynamic Envi-

ronments Such As the Military Context?
Te term competence can be defned as an integration of individual knowledge,
skills, and attitudes used to perform a specifc task (Aguado et al., 2014). To under-
stand the evolution of the term competence, we will explain each of the competence
models in more detail, focusing on the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954),

Lt. Cmdr. Sandra Campaniço Cavaleiro (OF-3), Portuguese Navy, is chief of the Ofce of
Human Resources Management System for the Portuguese Navy. She holds a PhD and a mas-
ter’s degree in human resources management from Lisbon University. Her research interests
focus on military team training, nontechnical skills development, simulation, Bridge Resource
Management and work-family confict.

Catarina Gomes is an associated professor at Lusófona University of Humanities and Tech-

nology and an associated researcher at CICPSI, Psychology School, University of Lisbon. She
has a PhD in human resources management and development and a master’s degree in hu-
man resources, work, and organizational psychology. Her main research interests include
individual innovation, creativity, leadership, afective states, motivation at work and adap-
tation. At the present, she is focused on the study of the dynamics that shape adaptation
throughout complexity leadership.

Miguel Pereira Lopes is an associated professor at School of Social and Political Sciences, Uni-
versity of Lisbon. He is the coordinator of the Human Resources Unit at the School of Social
and Political Sciences, University of Lisbon, and the president of Centre for Public Administra-
tion and Public Policies. He is the national representative at EURAM Board – European Acad-
emy of Management. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, a PhD in applied psychology,
and a post-PhD in economics.

74 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Table
Main Findings on NTS Development for Military Teams

Reference Aim Findings

Conceição et al. (2017) Development of behavioral marker system
for rating cadet’s NTS.
Kerry (2013) Framework on competency in the military.
Nguyen et al. (2015) Examination of simulation-based training on
NTS performance.
Håvold et al. (2015) Examination of simulation-based training
efectiveness.
Hardison et al. (2015) Transfer of skills taught to the military to
civilian workplaces.
Tvedt et al. (2018) Evaluation of Bridge Resource Management
efectiveness for training commercial
shipping feet.
Sellberg (2017) Systematic review of use of simulators in
maritime education and training.
Sellberg et al. (2018) Examination of role of instructors and com-
petencies assessment in simulation-based
learning environments.
Delugach et al. (2016) Examination of knowledge capture for
acquisition of team mental models.
Rico et al. (2017) Development of a predictive model for
understanding the contribution of motivation of organizations.
to team performance in interdependent
systems.
Saeed et al. (2019) Identifcation of essential NTS for merchant
marine deck ofcers.
Five skills were identifed: situational aware-
ness, communication, decision-making,
teamwork, and leadership.
Competencies for military teams include
leader and individual skills, as well as
knowledge (tacit and explicit); NTS are
high level skills, including leadership and
decision-making.
NTS include cognitive and social skills and
personal resources enabling a safer and
efcient task performance.
NTS referred to as tools for mitigating human
error.
NTS are the most important skills for military
personnel performance.
Low situational awareness can lead to a
higher probability of accidents.
NTS are pivotal for military personnel
performance and may be developed using
simulation-based training. Situational
awareness, decision-making, teamwork, and
leadership referred to as the most important
for military personnel operating in maritime
environment.
Brief and debrief techniques used for
communication can improve organizational
and team learning.
Good communication channels are essential
for team elements’ coordination.
Teamwork is determinant for the functioning
Overcoming problems associated with
communication and teamwork allows the
achievement of established safety levels,
both for individuals as well as teams.

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 75

Table
Main Findings on NTS Development for Military Teams (continued)

Wahl (2019) Examination of simulator fdelity in simu-
lation-based training used for collaborative
learning activities.
Röttger et al. (2013) Adaptation of Crew Resource Management
Attitudes Questionnaire (CMAQ) to maritime
domain.
Ogle et al. (2019) Evaluation of knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSA) in personnel assigned to operational
military units.
Incident command skills, such as leadership,
team efciency, and safer operations are
achieved through simulation-based training.
NTS are essential for teams functioning in
extreme conditions.
NTS development allows continuous devel-
opment of military teams.

competence model of McClelland (1973), competence model of Spencer and Spen-

cer (1993), and Boyatzis’ model (2008).
Flanagan (1954) intended for the critical incident technique to provide an easier
way to create psychological principles and solutions for practical problems based on
direct observations of human behavior. Tis technique uses many diferent instru-
ments, such as interviews. Tese instruments are used to evaluate individual prof-
ciency directly related to specifc tasks, translated into behaviors (Flanagan, 1954).
Tis technique was designed to understand the relationship between a particular
action and the intention underlying that behavior (Boyatzis, 2008).
McClelland (1973) introduced a new approach to performance: individual com-
petence is the origin for diferentiating performance (Boyatzis, 2008). According
to McClelland (1993), personal competencies are more relevant than intelligence
and are determinant to execute tasks. Boyatzis complemented McClelland’s model,
mentioning that only a limited set of competencies would be a descriptor for work
success (Alliger et al., 2007). McClelland developed the behavioral event interview
based on Flanagan’s critical incident technique (1954), defning high and low perfor-
mance levels (Marrelli, 1998).
Te competence model, developed by Spencer and Spencer (1993), includes elev-
en management competencies, such as analytic thinking, initiative, self-confdence,
team leadership, teamwork (Dainty et al., 2004), and individual reward (Spencer &
Spencer, 1993).
Lastly, Boyatzis (2008) argues that we could look at competence as an abili-
ty, based on diferent behaviors called intentions, organized around a subjacent
construct and appropriate for many diferent situations. Boyatzis (2008) consid-
ered cognitive competencies (e.g., pattern recognition), emotional competencies
(e.g., self-consciousness, self-control), and social competencies (e.g., interpersonal
relationship ability) essential for individuals in professional domains. Competen-

76 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

cies include diferent individual characteristics used for performing a complete

task (Brightwell & Grant, 2013; Marrelli, 1998). But how can an individual develop
competencies in a military context?
Competencies include diferent levels: individual, work, team, unit, mission es-
sential, mission-specifc, force, and core (Kerry, 2013). For military groups, compe-
tencies can be analyzed through the Command Team Efectiveness Model, integrat-
ing operational conditions, processes involved, and team action outputs, based on
learning cycles, states, and process adjustments (Essens et al., 2005). Operational
conditions for military teams require leadership skills, knowledge (tacit and explicit),
individual skills, attitudes, as well as task-focused and team-focused behaviors (Ker-
ry, 2013). We consider that technical skills and NTS, included in work competencies,
are essential (Kerry, 2013). Technical skills can be more specifc and related to one
task. NTS are high level skills that include leadership, decision-making, information
management, and other skills (Kerry, 2013).
More specifcally, when referring to cognitive and psychomotor abilities to per-
form a task, we use technical skills (Nestel et al., 2011). Individuals use technical
skills to ride a bicycle, operate a weapon system, or maneuver a warship. Conversely,
NTS corresponds to cognitive and social skills and personal resources, enabling a
safer and efcient task performance while complementing technical skills (Flin et
al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015). Tese are the essential skills to avoid or detect a hu-
man error in time to implement the necessary alterations and to avoid an adverse
event, thereby mitigating human error (Conceição et al., 2017; Håvold et al., 2015)
that can afect individuals and materials drastically (Flin et al., 2013). Te fve NTS
pivotal for operating in high-dynamic environments are situational awareness, deci-
sion-making, communication, teamwork, and team leadership (Flin & Maran, 2015).
In the military context, these skills are equally referred to as the most important for
military personnel when considering how NTS afect performance (Alliger et al.,
2007; Hardison et al., 2015; O’Connor, 2011; Röttger et al., 2013; Salas et al., 2006;
Sellberg, 2017). Considering the fve NTS pivotal for operating in high-dynamic en-
vironments, it is now relevant to defne each one individually.
Situational awareness is comprised of three steps: perception of environmental el-
ements, comprehension of their signifcance in a restricted space and time, and pro-
jection in future events (Endsley, 1995b). Tis skill relies on three essential elements:
gathering information, interpretation of data, and anticipation of future events (Flin
et al., 2013). Each military team must understand how the battlefeld is functioning
and how to execute the assigned mission (Endsley & Robertson, 2000; Flin et al.,
2013; Saner et al., 2009). Situational awareness is precursory to decision-making,
based on previous experience and training of the military team (Endsley, 1995a). Tis
cognitive skill is afected by the same constraints that afect mental ability (e.g., fa-
tigue, stress, distractions, interruptions, and overstimulation) (Flin et al., 2013). Situ-
ational awareness is positively associated with concentration and individual capacity

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 77

to focus (Flin et al., 2013). When low situational awareness levels exist, accidents
have a higher probability of occurring (Tvedt et al., 2018).
Decision-making is the necessary process to accomplish a judgment or select a
response option, allowing one to solve a problem fulflling the situation necessities
(Flin et al., 2013). Te decision-making process occurs through the evaluation of a
case (corresponding to situational awareness), problem defnition, evaluation of one
or more response options, selection and implementation of a response option, and
analysis of the results (Flin et al., 2013). It is fundamental for the operational level
(Tunholm, 2004). Military teams, without this skill, cannot collect the necessary in-
formation and quickly make decisions (Flin et al., 2013) about the actions required to
accomplish the mission. Decision-making can be afected by diferent factors, such
as technical profciency, experience, situation familiarity, stress, fatigue, noise, dis-
tractions, and interruptions (Flin et al., 2013).
Communication is an information exchange between individuals, through which
feedback, ideas, or feeling can fow (Flin et al., 2013). It relies on four elements: trans-
mission of concise and precise information, context and intention included during
information exchange, information reception, and identifcation of communication
barriers (Flin et al., 2013). Straightforward and pragmatic communication is deter-
mined by organizational norms and training (Flin et al., 2013). Briefng is a typical
communication process performed in the military context, essential for any train-
ing or mission. In this communication process, the military personnel can under-
stand their objectives (Flin et al., 2013). Military teams using briefng and debriefng
can analyze their training or mission through individual, team, and organizational
learning lenses (Sellberg et al., 2018). Te factors afecting communication can be
the source of incidents and accidents, such as defects in communication systems,
failures in message transmission and reception, emotional and rational interference,
motivation, and individual expectations during the communication process (Flin et
al., 2013). When a high volume of communications is necessary, such as in the mili-
tary context, exemplary processing of information and proper communication chan-
nels (Whelan & Teigland, 2013), as well as the coordination between team elements
(Delugach et al., 2016) is paramount.
Teamwork is crucial for any organization, acting as a bonding agent (Bates et al.,
2013; Flin et al., 2013; Rico et al., 2017). Teamwork skills are attitudes and behav-
ioral interactions that team elements must develop before working as a cohesive
and efective team (Flin et al., 2013). Teamwork arises from four aspects: support-
ing others, confict resolution, information exchange, and activities coordination
(Flin et al., 2013). Tese aspects are pivotal in the military context (Salas et al.,
1995; Shufer et al., 2012). As with any other NTS, teamwork can have some asso-
ciated problems. An imprecise defnition of rules, the absence of explicit coordina-
tion between team elements, and communication failures can afect cooperation
(Flin et al., 2013). Te improvement of coordination solves teamwork-related prob-

78 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

lems and creates the necessary individual and team performance and safety levels
(Saeed et al., 2019).
Team leadership arises when coordination and direction between team elements
occur (Flin et al., 2013). Te main aspects of team supervision are authority, pattern
support, planning, prioritization, workload, and resources management (Flin et al.,
2013). In a military context, leadership is exercised through command, correspond-
ing to the authority conferred to a military commanding ofcer to direct, coordinate,
and control military forces. Te leader’s decision is supported by a secure climate
arising from team elements sharing information between them (Ornato & Peberdy,
2014; Smolek et al., 1999; Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2013). Military team leaders need
adaptable incident command skills (Arbuthnot, 2017) that lead to safer operations,
and improved team efciency (Wahl, 2019).
With this, we conclude that the answer to our frst research question is that the
main NTS used in high-dynamic environments, such as the military contexts, are
situational awareness, decision-making, communication, teamwork, and team lead-
ership. Considering the main NTS used in high-dynamic environments, how can
these skills afect military team performance?

Teme 2: Is Tis the Holy Grail of Military Teams’ Performance?

Previously, we presented the defnition for NTS and its use. In military context for
the NTS development hierarchy, as well as for the functions that characterized each
level of the pyramid, we verify that each hierarchical level of a military organization
uses NTS diferently. While lower hierarchical levels will execute tasks and missions,
mainly using technical skills, intermediate and upper hierarchical levels will be much
more specialized and will widely perform using NTS (Kerry, 2013).
Military personnel train and prepare to perform in an operational environment,
using both individual and team skills (Bennett et al., 2013). Training is fundamental
for military context (Noe et al., 2014), allowing individuals to develop the necessary
skills (Kerry, 2013). Integrating simulated training with actual missions contributes
to acquiring and developing mission-essential competencies, which can only occur
after developing support competencies such as NTS (Bennett et al., 2013).
Mission-essential competencies allow military teams to function in the real
world. At the same time, it is necessary to build a bridge between mission-essential
competencies and the knowledge and skills acquired through training. Tis bridge
corresponds to NTS development, and we may think of them as the holy grail of mil-
itary team performance. Tese are support skills (Bennett et al., 2013) and include
situational awareness, internal and external teamwork, and team leadership (Alliger
et al., 2007). NTS allow individuals to interrelate, achieve better performance results,
and act safely and efciently (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). NTS serve as the glue

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 79

for individuals and teams, functioning in extreme conditions (Hedlund & Österbeg,
2011; Röttger et al., 2016). Linking knowledge, skills, and essential mission compe-
tencies will be the basis for the NTS development hierarchy proposed above. It is
fundamental to apply it, both in training and natural conditions, always looking for
the continual development of military teams (Conceição et al., 2017; Driskell et al.,
2018; Freeman & Zachary, 2018; Mansikka et al., 2017; Ogle et al., 2019).
Tese fndings show that NTS allows individuals to achieve improved perfor-
mance and higher levels of safety and efciency, answering research question two:
Are NTS pivotal for military team performance?
Considering the efect that NTS can have on military team performance, how can
NTS be developed on these teams?

Teme 3: A Proposed Developmental Hierarchy

NTS development can occur through an evolutive pyramid, fundamental for
individual and team performance. Understanding how teams can function, be
successful, or fail is critical for achieving better performance (Freitas & Leonard,
2011), particularly for military groups operating in a wide variety of conditions
(Bertram et al., 2015). But in which way does each NTS relate to and contribute to
a skills hierarchy?
Te correct analysis of the scenario where the team is operating is critical for deci-
sion-making, guaranteeing that every important element is identifed (Gugliotta et al.,
2017). It is fundamental to ensure two types of situational awareness for the team deci-
sion-making process: individual situational awareness and shared situational awareness
(Flin et al., 2013). With this, we can argue that decision-making and situational aware-
ness are profoundly interconnected (Endlsey & Selcon, 1997; Stubbings et al., 2012).
Teamwork relates to communication and decision-making. If communication
does not exist, a team cannot function (Flin et al., 2013) or guarantee the success of
an objective through obtaining a decision resulting from a process undertaken by
interdependent elements (Orasanu & Salas, 1993).
Maslow (1943) proposed a motivational theory based on a fve-level needs
hierarchy, which was expanded to an eight-level hierarchy with further research
(Maslow, 1970). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) can be applied to education
and learning, though we propose that would not be possible to pass to an upper
level of the pyramid if all the needs from the lower levels were not fully satisfed
(Hamel et al., 2003). Maslow’s needs hierarchy (1943) can explain the NTS devel-
opment; the following NTS can only be acquired after the full acquisition of the
previous one. However, we have also to acknowledge Maslow’s later work when
he considered that this hierarchy is not rigid (Maslow, 1987). As military teams
function in high-dynamic environments, individuals may adapt their NTS devel-

80 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Figure
NTS Development Hierarchy for Military Teams

Leadership

Teamwork

Communication

Decision-making

Situational Awareness

opment scheme to external conditions in order to achieve maximum performance.

We propose a development hierarchy of NTS for military context, as presented in
the fgure.
According to this approach, situational awareness is the basis of the pyramid. If
we do not understand where we are, it is impossible to work as a team, communicate,
make decisions, or lead. If the team can develop a complete view of where the team
is, then it is possible to identify the potential problems and their potential solutions
through an appropriate decision-making process without accidents (Stubbings et al.,
2012). It is possible to communicate if the necessary information is passed to other
team elements resulting from the decision. Te existence of updated data is fun-
damental in the military context (Louvieris et al., 2010), and communication plays
an essential role in creating a web for sustaining teamwork. Lastly, the team leader
will be responsible for aggregating knowledge, skills, and attitudes fundamental for
achieving collaboration and accomplishing the assigned mission.
Military training programs can apply this NTS hierarchy, allowing military per-
sonnel to develop those skills and overcome all the factors that might infuence the
acquisition of each skill (Kehoe, 2013). Tis development hierarchy may provide the
necessary and appropriate cognitive and behavioral modifcations essential for skills
development (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Te education and training of military per-
sonnel can occur by applying the NTS hierarchy, contributing to fulflling organiza-
tional needs (Wallace, 2013).
With this, we conclude that NTS can be developed through a hierarchical skills
development scheme using military team training. Tis is the answer to research
question three: How can NTS be developed in military team training?

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 81

 An integrative literature review would not be complete without discussing its
main implications for knowledge and considering future research recommenda-
tions. We have assumed that NTS development is a fundamental key for teams’
evolution, maximizing individual and team performance. Te NTS development
hierarchy needs empirical validation to verify the proposed hierarchical and in-
terrelated acquisition of situational awareness, decision-making, communication,
teamwork, and leadership. For future research, we recommend designing NTS
training programs specifcally designed for military context, including individual
and team development of NTS and its evaluation, through simulation-based train-
ing and training in real scenarios. Te NTS hierarchy would be refned by evidence
emerging from these programs and extend the fndings on skills development of
military teams.

Discussion
Our fndings have focused on the importance of fve main NTS for military team
training and human error mitigation. It is critical to conceptualize its impact on adult
learning. Te learning character of military organizations can be enhanced through
critical thinking, improving military education/ training, and assessing new develop-
ment opportunities (Berg, 2020). Improving NTS levels of military personnel is es-
sential for ensuring a better understanding of processes and efects (Khachadoorian
et al., 2020) of individual actions on team processes and mission goals. At the same
time, building strong linkages between explicit and tacit knowledge through NTS
development will “improve the military’s agility, adaptability, and speed of respond-
ing to any challenges presented by adversaries” (Babin & Garven, 2019, p. 3). NTS
development and tacit knowledge are linked. First, this linkage arises from training
and life experiences, contributing to mental agility and response to crises (U.S. De-
partment of the Army, 2015). Second, the major role that NTS perform as cognitive
and social skills and personal resources conducing to safer performance can also be
associated with tacit knowledge (Flin et al., 2013).
Military leaders with well-established command functions, strong hierarchical
and rule-based relations (Arbuthnot & Flin, 2017; Denning & Higgins, 2019), and
high dependence on the availability of data and resources (Driskell et al., 2018) are
the foundations of the military context. Military organizations have dedicated time
to defne continual education and training requirements that military personnel
should complete to fulfll their functions (Khachadoorian et al., 2020). Any military
operation that has clearly defned mission goals and team members to acquire the
necessary skills for achieving that goal is pivotal to mission accomplishment (Good-
win et al., 2018). Team training using high-fdelity scenarios allows team members to
acquire necessary skills (Grand & Kozlowski, 2013; McEwan et al., 2017).

82 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Military operations are associated with dangerous life situations as well as with
constraints concerning time and resources’ availability (Sarna, 2017). It is crucial to
share tacit and explicit knowledge and provide the necessary training for individuals
and teams (Bertram et al., 2015; Kerry, 2013). In theme 1, we have considered that
NTS, along with technical skills, may arise as the necessary tools for military orga-
nizations to overcome some human factor limitations by reducing the error chain
(Håvold et al., 2015). With this theme, we have answered research question one:
Which NTS are used in high-dynamic environments such as the military context?
For teams operating in highly dynamic conditions, such as military teams, it is nec-
essary to identify how to train those teams, ensuring an efective learning path and
preventing skill decay. Simultaneous development of technical and NTS is the way to
achieve safer operations, and improve team efciency (Wahl, 2019). Simultaneously,
preventing skill decay and enhancing team performance through the hierarchy of
NTS development will allow military personnel to evolve from novices to experts
on their functions, guaranteeing a continuum between explicit and tacit knowledge
(Babin & Garven, 2019). We believe this is the future for military education and
learning, thus leading to our conceptualization of NTS as the holy grail of military
team performance, as proposed previously in theme 2. Here, we have discussed the
importance of NTS to military team performance, and where we answered research
question two: Are NTS pivotal for military team performance?
We believe that focusing team training processes on NTS development is pivotal for
improving learning and training experiences. Trough the development of a hierarchy
of NTS, we believe that team training will better meet the present-day needs of military
organizations, fulflling a “multidimensional frame, blending formal, nonformal, and
informal experiences that transcend time, space, medium, and format” (Bannan et al.,
2020, p. 68). NTS development for individuals and teams contribute to reducing risks
and accidents, as well as mitigate human error (Cavaleiro et al., 2020). Human error
mitigation is possible by applying simultaneous technical and NTS development. Tis
type of skills development is based on learning strategies (e.g., diversity in learning ex-
periences, learning opportunities that go beyond instruction/training sessions design,
cognitive load strategies, and connectivism-based strategies), and enhances learners’
development through instructors’ guidance (Bannan et al., 2020). We also propose that
simultaneous technical and NTS training will delay skill decay, reducing the number of
training sessions and improving team performance using implicit and explicit knowl-
edge. Tere is a continuum between these two types of knowledge, allowing individ-
uals to evolve from novice to expert stage in their functions (Babin & Garven, 2019).
It is essential to “recognize the importance of assessing the knowledge over time and
identifying the requirements that are needed to establish when an individual has be-
come an expert” (Babin & Garven, 2019, p. 7). Technical skills and NTS are fundamen-
tal for achieving the necessary doctrine requirements for training and education. We
assumed the complete acquisition of one NTS to enable the development of the next

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 83

one in the NTS development hierarchy, improving the process of knowledge acquisi-
tion. Tis process is like the evolution from novice to expert: a beginner cannot move
forward without enhancing his or her explicit knowledge (Babin & Garven, 2019), and
his/her NTS of decision-making and communication. Te expert has the experience,
the implicit knowledge to solve problems (Babin & Garven, 2019), and the acquisi-
tion of the fve NTS of our hierarchy. When an individual has an excellent situational
awareness level, has acquired the decision-making process, and has developed good
communication skills (Babin & Garven, 2019), it is possible to go further on the NTS
development hierarchy. He/she has achieved the necessary implicit knowledge to be-
come a team leader, with leadership as the top skill for NTS development pyramid.
With theme 3, we have proposed a NTS development hierarchy, interrelating the six
main NTS mentioned in the theme 1, and answering research question three: How can
NTS be developed in military team training?

Conclusions
Technical and NTS development is pivotal for the success of military teams. We
have advanced the theoretical framework on NTS development adapted to military
teams using an integrative literature review. We argue that training should incorpo-
rate this development hierarchy to achieve safer performance conditions and timely
identifcation of human error. Higher performance and better cohesion, fundamen-
tal for operating during peace and wartime, can be achieved by including NTS in
training programs of military teams.

References
Alliger, G. M., Beard, R., Bennett, W., Colegrove, C. M., & Garrity, M. (2007). Understanding mission
essential competencies as a work analysis method. Air Force Research Laboratory.
Alliger, G. M., Cerasoli, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team resilience: How teams fourish
under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003
Aguado, D., Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Salas, E. (2014). Teamwork competency test (TWCT):
A step forward on measuring teamwork competencies. Group Dynamics: Teory, Research and
Practice, 18(2), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036098
Arbuthnot, K. (2017). Key issues in incident command. In R. Flin & K. Arbuthnot (Eds.), Incident com-
mand: Tales from the hot seat (pp. 10–31). Routledge.
Arbuthnot, K. & Flin, R. (Eds.). (2017). Introduction. In Incident command: Tales from the hot seat (pp.
3–9). Routledge.
Babin, L. B., & Garven, A. J. (2019). Tacit knowledge cultivation as an essential component of develop-
ing experts. Journal of Military Learning, 3(1), 3–18.

84 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Bannan, B., Dabbagh, N., & Walcutt, J. J. (2020). Instructional strategies for the future. Journal of Mili-
tary Learning, 4(1), 68–80.
Bates, R. A., Cannonier, N., & Holton, E. F., III (2013). Starting points to measurement decisions in train-
ing evaluation. In C. Best, G. Galanis, J. Kerry, & R. Sottilare (Eds.), Fundamental issues in defense
training and simulation (pp. 257–273). Ashgate.
Bennett, W., Jr., Alliger, G. M., Colegrove, C. M., Garrity, M. J., & Beard, R. M. (2013). Mission essen-
tial competencies: A novel approach to profciency-based live, virtual, and constructive readiness
training and assessment. In C. Best, G. Galanis, J. Kerry, & R. Sottilare (Eds.), Fundamental issues in
defense training and simulation (pp. 47–62). Ashgate.
Berg, P. E. (2020). Letter from the editor. Journal of Military Learning, 4(1), 2.
Bertram, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cress, U. (2015). Virtual training: Making reality work? Computers in Human
Behavior, 43, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.032
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1),
5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730
Brightwell, A., & Grant, J. (2013). Competency-based training: Who benefts? Postgraduate Medical
Journal, 89(1048), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-130881
Cavaleiro, S. C., Gomes, C., & Lopes, M. P. (2020). Bridge resource management: Training for the min-
imization of human error in the military naval context. Journal of Navigation, 73(5), 1146–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463320000235
Chouhan, V. S., & Srivastava, S. (2014). Understanding competencies and competency model-
ing–A literature survey. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(1), 14–22. https://doi.
org/10.9790/487X-16111422
Conceição, V. P., Basso, J. C., Lopes, F. C., & Dahlman, J. (2017). Development of a behavioural mark-
er system for rating cadet’s non-technical skills. TRANSNAV, 11(2), 255–262. https://doi.
org/10.12716/1001.11.02.07
Conceição, V. P., Mendes, J. C., Teodoro, M. F., & Dahlman, J. (2019). Validation of a behavioural marker system
for rating cadet’s non-technical skills. TRANSNAV, 13(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.01.08
Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M. I., & Moore, D. R. (2004). A competency-based performance model for con-
struction project managers. Construction Management and Economics, 22(8), 877–886. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0144619042000202726
Delugach, H. S., Etzkorn, L. H., Carpenter, S., & Utley, D. (2016). A knowledge capture approach for
directly acquiring team mental models. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96,
12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.001
Denning, P. J., & Higgins, S. L. (2019). Being in uncertainty. Cultivating a new sensibility in military edu-
cation. Journal of Military Learning, 3(1), 87–105.
Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (2018). Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team devel-
opment and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 434–449.
Endsley, M. (1995a). A taxonomy of situation awareness errors. In R. Fuller, N. Johnson, & N. McDonald
(Eds.). Human factors in aviation operations (pp. 287–292). Ashgate.
Endsley, M. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors,
37(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 85

Endsley, M. R., & Robertson, M. M. (2000). Situation awareness in aircraft maintenance teams. In-
ternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2), 201–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
8141(99)00073-6
Endsley, M. R., & Selcon, S. J. (1997). Designing to aid decisions through situation awareness enhance-
ment. Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on situation awareness in tactical aircraft (pp. 107–112).
Naval Air Warfare Center.
Espevik, R., Johnsen, B. H., & Eid, J. (2011). Outcomes of shared mental models of team members in
cross training and high-intensity simulations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Mak-
ing, 5(4), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411424695
Essens, P., Vogelaar, A., Mylle, J., Blendell, C., Paris, C., Halpin, S., & Baranski, J. (2005). Military command
team efectiveness: Model and instrument for assessment and improvement. North Atlantic Treaty
Organization/Research and Technology Organization.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). Te critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2015). Basic concepts for crew resource management and non-technical
skills. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anesthesiology, 29(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bpa.2015.02.002
Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2013). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills (2nd
ed.). Ashgate.
Freeman, J., & Zachary, W. (2018). Intelligent tutoring for team training: Lessons learned from US Mil-
itary Research. In J. Johnston, R. Sollitare, A. M. Sinatra, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Building intelligent
tutoring systems for teams (Research on managing groups and teams) (Vol. 19, pp. 215–245). Em-
erald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620180000019013
Goodwin, G. F., Blacksmith, N., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Te science of teams in the military: Contri-
butions from over 60 years of research. American Psychologist, 73(4), 322–333. https://doi.
org/10.1037/amp0000259
Grand, J. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2013). Eight basic principles for adaptability training in synthetic
learning environments. In C. Best, G. Galanis, J. Kerry & R. Sottilare (Eds.), Fundamental issues in
defense training and simulation (pp. 97–113). Ashgate.
Grossman, R. & Salas, E. (2011). Te transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal
of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x
Gugliotta, A., Ventsislavova, P., Garcia-Fernandez, P., Peña-Suarez, E., Eisman, E., Crundall, D., & Castro,
C. (2017). Are situation awareness and decision-making in driving totally conscious processes?
Results of a hazard prediction task. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Be-
haviour, 44, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.11.005
Hamel, S., Leclerc, G., & Lefrançois, R. (2003). Perspective: A psychological outlook on the concept of
transcendent actualization. Te International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327582IJPR1301_02
Hardison, C. M., Shanley, M. G., Saavedra, A. R., Crowley, J. C., Wong, J. P., & Steinberg, P. S. (2015). What
veterans bring to civilian workplaces. A prototype toolkit for helping private-sector employers un-
derstand the nontechnical skills taught in the military. RAND National Defense Research Institute.

86 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Håvold, J. I., Nistad, S., Skiri, A., & Ødegård, A. (2015). Te human factor and simulator training for
ofshore anchor handling operators. Safety Science, 75, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2015.02.001
Hontvedt, M., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). On the bridge to learn: Analyzing the social organization of
nautical instruction in a ship simulator. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 89–112.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9166-3
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certifcation and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1
January 2012, https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx
Kerry, J. (2013). Competency in the military. In C. Best, G. Galanis, J. Kerry, & R. Sottilare (Eds.), Funda-
mental issues in defense training and simulation (pp. 9–20). Ashgate.
Khachadoorian, A. A., Steen, S. L., & Mackenzie, L. B. (2020). Metacognition and the military student:
Pedagogical considerations for teaching senior ofcers in professional military education. Journal
of Military Learning, 4(1), 3–18.
Louvieris, P., Gregoriades, A., & Garn, W. (2010). Assessing critical success factors for military de-
cision support. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 8229–8241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.05.062
Mansikka, H., Harris, D., & Virtanen, K. (2017). An input-process-output model of pilot core competen-
cies. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 7(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1027/2192-
0923/a000120
Marrelli, A. F. (1998). An introduction to competency analysis and modeling. Performance Improve-
ment, 37(5), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.4140370505
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American Psychologist,
28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034092
McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). Te efectiveness
of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic review
and meta-analysis of controlled interventions. PLOS ONE, 12(1), Article e0169604. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604
Murphy, J. D., & Duke, W. M. (2014). Te debrief imperative. Fast Pencil Premiere.
Nestel, D., Walker, K., Simon, R., Aggarwal, R., & Andreatta, P. (2011). Nontechnical skills: An inac-
curate and unhelpful descriptor? Simulation in Healthcare, 6(1), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SIH.0b013e3182069587
Nguyen, N., Elliott, J. O., Watson, W. D., & Dominguez, E., (2015). Simulation improves nontechnical
skills performance of residents during the perioperative and intraoperative phases of surgery. Jour-
nal of Surgical Education, 72(5), 957–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.03.005
Nickens, T., Liu, D., & Vincenzi, D. A. (2009). Decision making under crisis conditions: A training and
simulation perspective. In D. A. Vincenzi, J. A. Wise, M. Moulou, & P. A. Hancock (Eds.), Human
factors in simulation and training (pp. 321–331). CRC Press.

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 87

Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-frst-century workplace. Te
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(245-275). https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321
Ogle, A. D., Rutland, J. B., Fedotova, A., Morrow, C., Barker, R., & Mason-Coyner, L. (2019). Initial job
analysis of military embedded behavioral health services: Task and essential competencies. Mili-
tary Psychology, 31(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2019.1598227
Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Team decision making in complex environments. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Cal-
derwood, & C. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 327–345). Ablex.
Ornato, J. P., & Peberdy, M. A. (2014). Applying lessons from commercial aviation safety and operations
to resuscitation. Resuscitation, 85(2), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.10.029
Rico, R., Hinsz, V. B., Burke, S., & Salas, E. (2017). A multilevel model of multiteam motivation and perfor-
mance. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(3), 197–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616665456
Röttger, S., Vetter, S., & Kowalski, J. T. (2013). Ship management attitudes and their relation to behavior
and performance. Human Factors, 55(3), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812461271
Saeed, F., Bury, A., Bonsall, S., & Riahi, R. (2019). Te application of AHP in the development of a
taxonomy of merchant marine deck ofcers’ non-technical skills (NTS). Logistics & Sustainable
Transport, 10(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/jlst-2019-0005
Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1995). Military team research: Ten years of progress.
Military Psychology, 7(2), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0702_2
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Te science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471
Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training
work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392–412. https://
doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724444
Saner, L. D., Bolstad, C. A., Gonzalez, C., & Cuevas, H. M. (2009). Measuring and predicting shared sit-
uation awareness in teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3(3), 280–308.
https://doi.org/10.1518/155534309X474497
Sarna, P. C. (2017). Managing the spike: Te command perspective in critical incidents. In R. Flin & K.
Arbuthnot (Eds.), Incident command: Tales from the hot seat (pp. 32–57). Routledge.
Sellberg, C. (2017). Simulators in bridge operations training and assessment: A systematic review and
qualitative synthesis. WMU Journal of Maritime Afairs, 16, 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13437-016-0114-8
Sellberg, C., Lindmark, O., & Rystedt, H. (2018). Learning to navigate: Te centrality of instructions
and assessments for developing students’ professional competencies in simulator-based training.
WMU Journal of Maritime Afairs, 17, 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0139-2
Shufer, M. L., Pavlas, D., & Salas, E. (2012). Teams in the military. A review and emerging challenges. In
J. H. Laurence & M. D. Matthews (Eds.), Te Oxford handbook of military psychology (pp. 282–310).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399325.013.0106
Smolek, J., Hofman, D., & Moran, L. (1999). Organizing teams for success. In E. Sundstrom & Associates
(Eds.), Supporting work team efectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high perfor-
mance. Jossey-Bass.

88 April 2022—Journal of Military Learning

 NONTECHNICAL SKILLS

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of
Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. John
Wiley and Sons.
Stubbings, L., Chaboyer, W., & McMurray, A. (2012). Nurses’ use of situational awareness in deci-
sion-making: an integrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(7), 1443–1453. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05989.x
Swezey, R. W., Owens, J. M., Bergondy, M. L., & Salas, E. (1998). Task and training requirements analysis
methodology (TTRAM): An analytic methodology for identifying potential training uses of simu-
lator networks in teamwork-intensive task environments. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1678–1697. https://
doi.org/10.1080/001401398186135
Tunholm, P. (2004). Decision-making style: Habit, style or both? Personality and Individual Diferenc-
es, 36(4), 931–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00162-4
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative reviews of the literature: Methods and purposes. International
Journal of Adult and Vocational Education and Technology, 7(3), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.4018/
IJAVET.2016070106
Tvedt, S. D., Espevik, R., Oltedal, H. A., Fjeld, G. P., & Mjelde, F. V. (2018). Can you teach an old seadog
new tricks? Experimental evaluation of BRM training in the commercial feet. Necesse, 3(2), 164–
179. https://doi.org/10.21339/2464-353x.3.2.164
U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Techniques for efective knowledge management (Army Tech-
niques Publication 6-01.1). U.S. Government Publishing Ofce.
Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., Fiorellla, L., & Malone, N. (2010). Instructional strategies framework for military
training systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1490–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2013.01.038
Wahl, A. M. (2019). Expanding the concept of simulator fdelity: Te use of technology and collabo-
rative activities in training maritime ofcers. Cognition, Technology & Work, 22, 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10111-019-00549-4
Wallace, P. (2013). Training needs analysis for simulation-based training. In C. Best, G. Galanis, J. Kerry,
& R. Sottilare (Eds.), Fundamental issues in defense training and simulation (pp. 31–46). Ashgate.
Whelan, E., & Teigland, R. (2013). Transactive memory systems as a collective flter for mitigating infor-
mation overload in digitally enabled organizational groups. Information and Organization, 23(3),
177–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.06.001

Journal of Military Learning—April 2022 89